Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Nov 28, 2009 9:33am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials?

If I'm understanding this then, removal of damage caused by use of a film print, and the dust and dirt accumulated over time does not constitute creative work, but digitally processing the images in frames of a film to enhance them is creative since a choice is made in what is sufficient enhancement?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Nov 29, 2009 12:19am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials?

Yes your this is correct. Cleaning a film doesn't qualify but some digital restoration does. However, if the digital process that is restoring the film is automated it isn't creative. It would take frame by frame manual digital restoration to qualify for copyright protection.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-29 08:19:24

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Nov 29, 2009 4:55am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials?

Thank you. I really wanted to understand it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Propmaster Date: Nov 28, 2009 3:52pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials?

no no no...this is all wrong...wow, I'm in awe just to see someone write as advice that copyrights can't do anything...well, lets just hope that what ever they're using is "public domain" and they aren't being misguided by someone who wouldn't know better.....you do know what public domain is???.......it's when the owners rights are cut loose..."according to and only....it's owner".
this is coming from someone who has studied intellectual properties....now, for instance..say I'm an artist,90 yrs old...the studio that I originally did work for went on fire and many of the archives were burned including all the art, except for a few pieces, then the studio folded, although certain people were attached to the studio's name(the owners or the producers)....but they're all dead, or they sold they're shares to someone else through the years, although "YOU" may have one of the last surviving pieces, doesn't make you the owner of the visual...the actual piece, yes.....it doesn't give you the right to reprint or distribute as original either.....the artist may have an estate and you would be pretty surprised the rights artists have........but then again some can care less.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Nov 29, 2009 5:11am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: What is a 'restoration' and is it grounds for ownership of PD materials?

"you do know what public domain is???.......it's when the owners rights are cut loose..."according to and only....it's owner"."

No, that is incorrect. The public domain is the body of work for which itellectual property no longer applies. It is true that since 1989 new works have to be expressly dedicated to the public domain, but prior to that many works fell into the public domain due to:
1. Lack of valid copyright notice.
2. Lack of timely registration.
3. Lack of timely renewal at the end of the first copyright term.

Quite often, works by prominent and prolific artists fell into the public domain during their lifetime. All copyrights for works published before 1978 are fixed terms regardless of the author's date of death. The USA did not institute a "life +X years" term calculation until that year, so all works published since then are calculated based on a number of years after the author's death. However, works for hire and works of corporate authorship still have fixed terms of copyright not based on any contributor's date of death.

If the original work was allowed to fall into the public domain the author or the author's estate have no rights except for an expectation of what is called "moral rights." That is, that the work will not be claimed as someone elses original work. However, the law of moral rights is not retroactive and does not expressly give this right to the author of works published before the Berne Implementation Act.

Any underlying artwork in a cartoon is tied to the copyright in the film unless the underlying artwork was:
a) published prior to the film (meeting the formalities required to secure copyright).
b) registered as an unpublished work prior to the publication of the film.
Under these conditions the film then becomes a derivative work based on the copyright artwork.

If a person secures ownership of the last remaining print of a rare public domain film they are free to copy and distribute it however they please.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-29 13:11:00